Letters: election's wake, foreclosures, Benghazi and more

Where does the U-T dig up its opinion writers? “Election a eulogy for America of old,” Opinion, Nov. 15), lamenting President Obama’s re-election, spit out all the maladies of right-wing Republicans in one pathetic screed.

There was the laughable harangue about class warfare. There were the plaintive moans of Sen. [Joe] McCarthy and the Birchers from beyond the grave. There was the paranoia, the xenophobia and the jingoism that has dominated the Republican Party psyche for the past 60 years. There were the old lines about brainwashing of the public by the liberal media and corruption from within. And then there was the racial hatred cloaked as indignation over Obama the alien socialist, and the lazy parasites living off government handouts, a theme initiated by Nixon, when Lincoln was banished from the party. And then the final scene – doomsday has now arrived in America as Khrushchev’s prediction is fulfilled and the capitalist god sinks in the west.
– Peter Comstock, San Diego

In response to Rosemary Johnston’s letter (Nov. 17) regarding Obama buying votes with “gifts” and that Romney was guilty of same with a supposed endorsement of tax cuts to the rich, is entirely untrue!

First of all, Romney NEVER endorsed tax cuts to the rich, but he did propose that he would close write-off loopholes in the tax system. He did state that he would retain the current tax rates.

I suspect that Rosemary Johnston, and many others did not watch the Presidential Debates, or they would have heard Romney state several times that he would not propose tax cuts for the wealthy, and that he would close loopholes in the tax system. Thinking back to the first debate, Obama had a rough time hearing the very same words, and obviously continued in his entire campaign with the same untrue line of propaganda, and that seems to be all that the Rosemary Johnston’s heard.

We have the freedom to speak in the United States, but apparently that freedom has been corrupted to the point that speaking untruths is politically correct.

Sad times for America.
– PJ Anderson, San Diego

What Obama and the liberals need to ask themselves is, where in the “definition of living in dignity” does it mean being entitled to the profits of someone else’s hard work.
– Robert & Suzanne Falkenberg, Kensington

Some may call this feasting on sour grapes, but for my three decades-plus experience I cannot logically explain the election results.

Nationally, prior to the election we knew that over the past four years average incomes were down, we knew that workforce participation rates were lower than we have had in decades, we knew poverty rates were up, we knew income inequality had grown, we knew net job growth during the present administration was dwarfed by net food stamp enrollment growth, and unemployment among minorities were higher than on January 2009; yet after all that President Obama won his re-election effort.

Locally, we elected a congressmen that represented a congressional district with one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. Yet, when exit polls came out, one of the most important topics during the election was the economy and jobs.

So how is it logical to vote for politicians who have a poor track record on the economy?
– James Udan, Chula Vista

Now that the election is behind us, and emotions have hopefully subsided a bit, it is funny how no one has commented on the similarities between the first terms of Presidents Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Both men had very successful first terms. Each of them identified one nation as the Evil Empire, the source of most of the problems and misery in the world.

Both men set out to dramatically weaken and disable that one nation, and both had a remarkable amount of success doing just that in their first four years.

Of course, the nation identified as the Evil Empire by Ronald Reagan was the Soviet Union. In Barack Obama’s eyes, the Evil Empire is the United States of America. Still, the comparison is a valid one.
– Augusto Sanchez, San Diego

“Alas, the poor American voter, he just can never seem to get it right?” But after all is said and done, there are really only two kinds of people here within the United States – “those who truly make history, and those who are always content to just complain about it!”
– H. Rick Tavares, Campo

Is the media the fifth rail?

It is interesting reading and listening to all the pundits give their analysis as to why Mitt Romney lost the election. They say the Obama machine was much better organized than the Republicans. They say the Republican primaries were so brutal, it was impossible for Governor Romney to recover. They say the negative ads put out by the Democrats put Mr. Romney in a hole from which he could not recover. These may all be true.

However, no one addresses the role the liberal media played in the election. No one talks about the pass the media has given to Mr. Obama and his administration. Where were they during the aftermath of the Benghazi slaughter? No one talked about the pass Candy Crowley gave to the president during the second debate when she wrongly corrected Mr. Romney when he said the president said it was an act of terror on the day after the attack on the consulate.

It is one thing to try and convince the electorate that your positions benefit them. It becomes much more difficult when you have the majority of the print and electronic media favoring one candidate.
– William Renert, La Jolla

If the U-T editorial board is still mystified by the Democratic Party’s resurgence in San Diego politics they only need to look in the mirror at their own misguided attempts in “selling” the public flawed candidates and outdated messages. The constant barrage of front-page editorials and opinion pieces rallied the reading public to move away from the U-T’s favored party and look for new ideas. The Republican demise statewide may be indicative of social and demographic shifts, but at the local level this failure of messaging cannot be ignored.

No one denies a newspaper the right to champion a candidate or issue, but the U-T displayed incredibly bad judgment in assuming they could sell political ideas in the same manner that cheap furniture is hawked over holiday weekends. Thoughtful Republicans and Democrats alike were embarrassed by the hucksterism evidenced by the paper’s ham-fisted attempt to garner votes. One would hope future that election cycles are documented in a more professional and responsible manner by the region’s only surviving daily.
– Jim Janssen, Warner Springs

In “Foreclosure registry measure passes in San Diego” (utsandiego.com Nov. 13), readers are told the city of San Diego is trying to address blight. But, in doing so, the city is going to penalize distressed homeowners who are simply trying to stay in their homes and renegotiate their mortgage.

The Greater San Diego Association of REALTORS® (SDAR) is committed to helping people fulfill the dream of home ownership, so it was an easy decision for us to oppose this measure. The fee this ordinance calls for will likely be passed onto people struggling to remain in their homes. The fee is $76, but it can go as high as $1,000.

The City also estimates it will cost about $460,000 to build and maintain its new registry and there’s no guarantee it will be cost-recoverable, meaning there will be less money in the budget for code enforcement to address blight.

This ordinance hurts struggling homeowners and provides very little benefit to the community.

Homeowners are told by banks that in order to renegotiate an unaffordable mortgage they must first default. Those that do this now will be penalized by the City.

I want to thank council members Kevin Faulconer, Lorie Zapf and Carl DeMaio for standing up for distressed homeowners and asking for the registry’s trigger to be moved so people renegotiating their mortgages are not penalized. I also want to thank Mayor Jerry Sanders for his efforts to try and keep this costly ordinance from moving forward, as well as Mayor-elect Bob Filner for his support of capping the fee so as not to unnecessarily burden distressed homeowners.

SDAR urges the City Council members who support this registry to reconsider their position when it comes up for a final vote in December.
– Donna Sanfilippo, Board President, SDAR

We should celebrate the decrease in hospital stays, open-heart surgeries and outpatient visits that Tri-City is experiencing. Perhaps our efforts to curb obesity, exercise more, lower cholesterol and blood pressure, eat less fat and sugar are producing a healthier population. Isn’t that what we want? Healthy people, lower health costs, reduced health insurance premiums? Instead of lamenting the decline, Tri-City might attempt to learn what it is doing right.

I am sending copies of the article to my representatives in the Legislature and Congress and will encourage them to investigate hospital-industry consultant Nathan Kaufman’s statement that a drop in patient counts is part of a national trend. If so, it should not be reversed through aggressive marketing. Rather, it may signal our ability to maintain Medicaid and Medicare without adding to the national debt.
– Rosalie Schwartz, San Diego

Your Nov. 17 editorial “Focus should be on Obama, not Petraeus,” castigating President Obama for supposed misleading the nation about the Benghazi attack, begins: “As of late Friday afternoon” you did not know what General Petraeus told the congressional investigative committee.

Well, a few hours later, we learned that he told them that the president had reported exactly what the intelligence service told the White House. Intelligence did not want the terrorists to learn that intelligence knew who had done what, so they would be easier to hunt down. Intelligence also did not inform the president as they knew if they did, it couldn’t be kept a secret.

So perhaps a small apology to the president?
– Fred E. Hahn, San Diego

The editorial might have noted that in a Sept. 12 interview with Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes,” discussing the Sept. 11 deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Obama said exactly this: “My suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start.” In other words, a planned terrorist attack. But he did not use the word “terrorist.” Anyone can watch that interview.
– Stan Logue, San Diego

In response the La Mesa letter writer calling “generals” arrogant (Nov. 17): Are these the same generals who have giving you and helped you maintain the freedom to generalize them all?
– Doug Davidson, San Diego

Having won the presidential election, in part by telling voters that “under the leadership of Barack Obama we had decimated al-Qaeda,” it’s obvious that this administration is confident they can tell the American public anything and a majority of voters will buy it.

General Petraeus told Congress that his report indicated the Libya incident was a “terrorist attack,” but that reference was removed in the final version, “although he wasn’t sure which federal agency deleted it.” Democrats said that “Petraeus made it clear that the change was not done for political reasons during President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign,” and that “The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda.” How can Petraeus know that given his first statement of “… he wasn’t sure which federal agency deleted it?” Let’s repeat this: Petraeus does not know who deleted “terrorist” but he’s sure it wasn’t anyone invested in re-electing Obama. Regardless of who you voted for, this is an obvious and unacceptable cover-up, possibly the worst since Watergate.

Susan Rice told the world that the attack was a protest in response to an anti-Muslim video. That statement triggered several more protests and cost many more lives. We’re now told this was done to protect information that should not be disclosed? Disclosed to whom? American voters right before an election?

If you voted for Obama to lead this country, now is your opportunity to ensure he does. Write your senators and congressmen and let them know you’re not an idiot. And for certain, don’t let Obama appoint Rice, who is obviously complicit in this cover-up, as secretary of state. America deserves better.
– W. Craig Reed, Escondido

In response to “Confidence on deficit deal voiced on Hill” (Nov. 17): As negotiations to avoid the long-forecasted 1 January fiscal meltdown continue, the president and his party remain adamant that the highest income tax rate return to the 39 percent that it was about 10 years ago. Almost all agree that this change will make only a small contribution to reducing the deficit. Many even think it will be harmful to job creation and fiscal recovery. The primary reason Democrats give for insisting on the increase as a part of the agreement to move forward is “fairness”.

The two most recent national examples of tax unfairness are Buffett and Romney. Their overall tax rate is reported to be just under the 15 percent capital gains rate because most of their income is from that source. Changing the top earned income tax bracket to 39 percent will do nothing to change the amount those gentlemen pay.

It seems to me that the Democrats hard sell of this issue is largely a game of bait and switch intended to make them seem to be the party of “fairness.” Someone please tell me what I am missing.
– Russell Buckley, La Mesa

The president is asking for ideas. How about incentivizing giving as a tax-reducing benefit that directly effects those needing/getting federal assistance.

What if instead of getting a dollar-for-dollar charitable deduction, what if after your $250,000 “basic” tax rate you could take 1.5 or 2 (maybe even 3) times the amount given to nonprofit institutions and charities that are facing financial challenges. There could be a special emphasis on educational institutions, scholarships. This could help hospitals and medical research and development.

People with a lot of money could be really encouraged to support community funds, and local arts organizations, and “government approved” 501(c)(3) organizations. Just think – if some federally funded organizations which are facing budget cuts could be helped locally by citizens wishing to put their dollars directly into the local economy, why not cut their taxes?
– Marti E Kranzberg, San Diego

If everyone agrees that the fiscal cliff tax hit will throw us into a recession. Isn’t it then obvious that if adding taxes is bad for the economy, then cutting taxes must be good for the economy. What am I missing here?
– Charles McGrath, San Diego

Twinkies are no more, thanks to the bakers that went on strike. Does anyone believe that strikers that force a company into bankruptcy should be allowed to collect unemployment?

Sixty-three years ago my father was working as a mechanic in New Orleans, the workers went on strike and the company let them see their books to prove that they couldn’t increase pay or benefits. The workers struck anyway; my father was one of the few holdouts against the strike. Sure enough the company closed down and the workers were shocked to be out of work.

No doubt San Diego city workers will follow in the path of the Twinkie employees, although California state employees will certainly give them a run for their money. Sorry, my mistake – that’s OUR money.
– Valorie Matthews, San Diego